>>77434861
He’s on gear; all opinions irrelevant

>>77434861
Yes. If you've never tried seriously bulking give it a go, you'll actually be amazed how quickly all your lifts progress and your arms blow up. You need to train hard obviously, you'll only get fat if you're training like a pussy and not even attempting to put more weight on the bar

I don't believe most anons have ever properly bulked, I read a lot of shit here like "im 150lbs now I'm gonna lock in for epic skibidi winter arc and bulk to 165lbs" and I'm like nigga that ain't a real bulk

>>77434861
Yeah bro it's the calories not the roids

>>77434880
OP picrel is on gear & you're a fucking retard. No one, not even roiders, NEED to put on whole pounds of fat in order to grow. Just like how the benefit from protein caps out, you only need a tiny surplus to get all you need. Like 250-500kcal over TDEE

>>77434890
You can grow on a small surplus
You will grow larger and and get stronger faster, and have a higher ceiling, on a larger surplus. The trade off is more bodyfat.
Everyone knows this is true, just stop being a retard and enjoy your 14 inch arms

>>77434906
>this is true
No it isn't. Eventually you're not doing anything but getting fatter. Post body you fat fuck.

A 250–500 kcal surplus can support some growth in ideal conditions. But “no one needs more, not even enhanced athletes” is false for meaningful progress>Why it fails in practice
TDEE is an estimate
Daily expenditure fluctuates (NEAT, training, stress, sleep). A paper “250 kcal surplus” is often maintenance or a deficit. Under-eating is common when people try ultra-lean bulks.
Rate of gain matters
Naturals realistically add ~0.25–0.5 lb muscle/week early on (less later). Supporting that plus glycogen/water and progressive overload usually needs a clearer surplus. Enhanced athletes gain faster and tolerate bigger surpluses due to better recovery and partitioning. Claiming even they only need 250–500 is wrong.
Protein ceiling ≠ calorie ceiling
Protein has diminishing returns (~1.6–2.2 g/kg). Calories affect training quality, recovery, hormones (test, thyroid, leptin), and overload capacity. Chronic low energy availability hurts all of those.
Recomp has limits
True recomp works best for beginners, returners, or higher-BF people. Lean intermediate/advanced naturals usually need a clear surplus for new muscle. Micro-surpluses often just stall progress.
Real-world results
Successful natural and enhanced bulkers who add noticeable size accept moderate surpluses and some fat. “Pure muscle on 300 over forever” stories are usually beginners, enhanced, poorly tracked, or short-term. Staying ultra-lean year-round almost always means slower growth.
Better framing
You don’t need to get fat. You do need enough energy for recovery and overload. For most intermediate+ naturals that means a surplus large enough that some fat appears if you want real muscle over months, not years. Enhanced athletes partition better and can push higher rates (and surpluses) with fewer downsides.
The “tiny surplus is all anyone needs” line sounds disciplined. In practice it often under-delivers because real people aren’t perfect calorie calcula

>>77434933
>Couldn't actually prove anything so he's plugs some bullshit into AI and tells him what he wants it to say.
I accept your concession, fatty.

>>77434944
I concede if you post body

>>77434933
Oh, are we bringing AI out to play, well then, look here fatty, you're wrong.

Worked for 33s

There’s a limit to how quickly your body can build muscle. Once you have enough energy to support training, recovery, and tissue growth, increasing the surplus further mostly increases fat gain, not muscle gain.

In an eight-week study of trained lifters, people assigned to roughly a 15% surplus gained weight faster than those eating at maintenance or a 5% surplus, but the larger surplus did not produce clearly greater muscle-thickness gains. Faster weight gain primarily predicted increased skinfold thickness—essentially, more body fat. The study was small, so the exact “perfect” surplus remains uncertain, but the basic pattern is consistent with the wider evidence.

A practical approach:

Start around 5–10% above maintenance, commonly about 150–300 extra calories per day.

Aim to gain roughly 0.25% of your body weight per week. Beginners may benefit from rates approaching 0.5% weekly, while experienced lifters should generally stay near the lower end.

Eat approximately 1.6–2.2 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight daily and follow progressive resistance training.

Judge the surplus using your average weight over several weeks, gym performance, waist measurement, and progress photos—not individual weigh-ins.


You can sometimes build muscle at maintenance or even in a deficit, particularly when you’re new to lifting, returning after time off, or carrying more body fat. A modest surplus becomes more useful as you get leaner and more experienced.

So yes: beyond a certain point, you’re largely storing unnecessary calories as fat, not accelerating muscle growth.

actual bulks make a lot of sense in your first two years, once noob gains every bulk equals gaining mostly fat because muscles start taking so long to grow that they stop relying on your immediate caloric budget (unless you're malnourished), so you can maingain for years and net the same muscle tissue growth as with bulking and cutting
I used to think it was a meme until I actually tested it myself, the rules change pretty significantly once you're already trained and remain natty

>>77434945
Asked you first you little piggy. And I'm not the one lying to people trying to get them to be fat cause I'm a bitter fat bitch, that's you. I am overweight and I'm not a bucketcrab piece of shit like you.

>>77434947
The conclusion goes beyond what the evidence actually supports.

Nobody disputes that muscle growth has a finite rate or that very large surpluses generally increase fat gain. The issue is the claim that a 5–10% surplus is effectively "optimal" or that calories beyond this are "largely unnecessary."

The main evidence cited is an eight-week study in trained lifters. Eight weeks is a relatively short timeframe for measuring hypertrophy, the sample size was small, and the study was not designed to determine an optimal calorie surplus. A failure to find a statistically significant difference in muscle growth between groups is not the same as demonstrating that no difference exists. It may simply reflect limited statistical power or the difficulty of detecting small changes over such a short period.

Furthermore, the participants represent only one population. Individual energy expenditure, training volume, recovery capacity, non-exercise activity (NEAT), genetics, and nutrient partitioning vary considerably. It is therefore difficult to generalise a single percentage surplus to everyone.

The broader body of evidence supports a more cautious conclusion: larger surpluses tend to increase fat gain more rapidly, but the precise surplus that maximises muscle growth while minimising fat gain remains uncertain and is likely to differ between individuals.

In practice, calorie intake should be adjusted according to real-world progress. If strength is improving, recovery is good, body weight is increasing at an appropriate rate, and excessive fat gain is not occurring, then the current intake is probably appropriate regardless of whether it represents a 5%, 10%, or 15% surplus.

The evidence supports avoiding unnecessarily large surpluses, but it does not establish that a modest surplus is universally optimal or that calories above an arbitrary threshold are simply converted into fat.

>>77434861
Isn't he prediabetic? Why should I care what he thinks?

An adult male should not weight any less than 100kg. Whenever I see some little bitch IRL who weighs less than 100kg at my gym I just treat them like a child because that's effectively what you are. I notice all the other men in my life do the same.

If you have been going to the gym for over 1 year and you do not weigh over 100 kilo grams then you just aren't trying. It's that simple. You aren't trying.

>>77434861
muttmaker there is correct if you're blasting. all calories turn to muscle

>>77434890
Have you ever actually bulked? How big are you and what are your lifts? Can you post physique?

>>77434955
Hey dude. You're obviously a new lifter and don't know shit. So shut the fuck up please. Bulking hard is absolutely useful.

>>77434955
>I am overweight
No-one except a retard is telling you to bulk if you are already obese

Holy shit are you actually this retarded?

>>77434910
What causes a man to lie and tell others what to do when they are know liars. I dont get it anymore.

>>77434890
Said like a true skinnyfat novice

>>77434874
This
Ignore the trannies

>>77434906
Even roiders arent going to get extra gains from extra calories beyond what the drugs allow.
Eating even more doesnt push hypertrophy/anabolism any further.

t, roider

>>77434975
so you're saying its impossible to get fat on steroids?
You nattys really think roids are magic lol

>>77435079
Tranny discovers hyperbole

>>77434861
Probably, but it's advice for steroid users and Paul Anderson. Your body would need an enormous amount of endurance and to recover quickly, to sustain the amount of work which would justify 4k calories. It would make more sense for naturals who are doing intense cardio. It's a white lie he has to tell his viewers.

>>77435080
its kinda hard to distinguish hyperbole or trolling from retardation and mental illness around here, you know

>>77435079
It's harder depending on what you're taking. GH melts fat

i found you don't need to eat that clean when you're on gear, it's much easier to stay lean in general even when you're eating a ton of fast food and pizza - your body is just more inclined towards putting on muscle with those calories than fat, burn more calories even at rest too. I've always said that on gear you only really need to lock in with diet if you wanna actually get shredded, like under 10% bf, but maintaining 10-16% bf is easy as fuck even with no cardio. Meanwhile natties need to lock in just to get that 10-16% bf...
this is all just bro science of course though, I trained for a long time natural and for years juiced and this is my own anecdote. for me it's way easier to be lean whilst /fraud/ eating whatever I want, getting lean was painful natural

>>77434861
If he knew what he was talking about he'd be natty

>>77434861
You have to learn how your body behaves on the high and low end of calories for more than 1 or 2 days straight op idk how to tell ya but you are gonna have to do this multiple times to monitor your muscle and fitness levels.

File: OIP-3802036740.jpg (26 KB, 474x316)

26 KB JPG

>>77435125
>staying lean natty into steroids route
I have 0 "willpower" because I am spiritually not Asian but it someone were to try and get an ideal physique asap you are beat off making it easy and focusing on muscle for at least 1 month at a time lmao. No salads you ifiot stop cutting you can't cheat god.

>>77434880
i might be misreading your post but 15 lbs over the course of a winter is 5 lbs/month, that's a pretty hefty bulk

>>77434933
If I wanted ChatGPT to summarise reddit for me I'd ask it myself

>>77435148
I had a stroke trying to read this

>>77435161
If you only bulked to 165lbs you gotta keep going, that's still skinny as fuck unless you're like 5'2"

i find it cool to see people going for size and big lifts, but personally i would much rather be lean. it's easier to maintain and i think it looks better. i don't feel as if i need that much muscle to look good

>>77434874
This.
You can eat whatever and lift however since roids do everything for you anf substitute hard work.
There vegan roiders bigger than this gyy.

>>77434861
>when you hit 4k ng/dL that's when you start to really grow

I remember when retards used to gaslight themselves into thinking he was natty at like 6'1 250 with abs

>>77434910
>>77434861
from chad face to bloated roid face

>some dude with low bf%, bowling ball delts, big traps, who shaves his chest and mysteriously wears a hat all the time is giving fitness advice or selling a supplement
>"I bet that's why he's so big!"
>t. gullible rube

I enjoyed some of his videos and now incorporate heavy rack pulls into my routine but jesus H christ can we as a community please not be SO fucking credulous?

>>77434861
i stopped growing when i was like 13 lmao

>>77434861
If you are at 3k maintenance peak bulk then 3500 is barely enough to offset variance.

>>77434861
Retarded broscience.
The average natural will just get fat as fuck at 4k calories and calories are not a muscle hypertrophy stimulus they are a fattening stimulus.

>>77434910
lol even that picture, those traps hahaha JUICYYY
>>77435009
duper's delight and being a shitbag used to be relegated to a small percentage of the population, and for people on the fence about such behavior, White cultures inculcated being a good person through repeated social pressures from an early age through family and school.

now everything is a race to the bottom low trust izzat and jugaad maxing. even otherwise decent people are actively encouraged to lie and cheat to get ahead, and the system moreso than ever rewards this type of shithead behavior. hustle and scamming culture is the norm. it sucks but you have to adapt or perish. not excusing his behavior, but this is reality now.

>>77435009
The majority of the "fitness" industry is structured around exactly this.

>>77434890
250 calories is already overdoing it.
>>77434906
>You can grow on a small surplus
You can grow on a small deficit.
>>77434912
This.
Funny how these people seem to forget the SS transformation compilations showing clearly that bulking just leads to gaining enormous amounts of fat.
>>77434933
Retarded slop.
>>77434986
>bulking hard is absolutely useful
for getting a bigger number on the scale
>>77435079
No, only that you store less fat if you're on a higher amount of androgens.
In fact just jumping on testosterone literally makes you leaner in relative and even absolute terms.

>>77434861
I doubt I even get 1000 or 1500 a day

>>77438332
Post body? No? Then shut the fuck up please.

>>77438332
>You can grow on a small deficit.
Yeah when you're still in your beginner gains stage. Which can take years if you keep believing this.

>>77434861
He is on roids.

>>77438440
Wow, do you think maybe someone in the previous 50 replies might have said that, like 10 times already? Of course not, you can't be bothered to read, you're the main character.

>>77434874
Not even worth mentioning. Anybody on fit that cant already filter advice and info based on the roid level of the freak saying it is ngmi

Remember when /fit/ used to swear he was natty? Lmao

>>77438731
You mean before he swelled up to twice the size, indicating that at one point he was either natty or at least juicing a lot less?

>>77438752
When he was attributing his size to eating garlic.

>>77434861
Rick gives some legit horrible advice. I don't know if he's trolling, retarded, or just stupid. That video he made a few months back where he coached some natty guy and almost killed him with cleans made me lose all my remaining respect for him.

>>77438752
He had been juicing since his college days but reddithagen fans pretended he was natty

>>77438752
>>77434910
He was a D1 collegiate wrestler, he hasnt spent a single day of his life off-roids since he hit puberty

>>77435009
he may have been natty in the early years? I dunno, it's just clear that he isn't now, but money is the reason. If your main income comes from youtube or social media and that's what you use to support yourself and your family, then you would do anything to keep that going, tell any lie, strangers on the internet are meaningless in comparison to your family

>>77434974
/thread

>>77438849
>>77438857
these
dude just started abusing the shit out of HGH when he went to WWE so it became obvious to anyone who's not a complete retard
reminder that he was like 250 with visible abs even before he joined WWE but he was totally natty because he trained for xyz amount of years and did bulgarian™ training

>>77438395
Bulkcel seething.
>>77438424
No, well trained lifters can grow muscle on a small deficit this isn't up to debate, fat and muscle are completely different tissues that respond differently to hormones and stress.

People just have unrealistic expectations of how much muscle they can grow, leading them to feeling the need to defend getting fat aka bulking because that's the only way they can see achange in the scale and they have FOMO.

>>77439456
Why would anyone listen to your opinions when you are so small, weak, and dyel?
Also since you're an inexperienced noob I'd like to correct one thing I noticed, browsing your bad advice:
>well trained lifters can grow muscle on a small deficit this isn't up to debate
No, only beginners can. Well trained lifters are already much nearer their genetic maximum, thus making growth HARDER, not EASIER. You would know this if you were a well trained lifter instead of a dyel giving bad, secondhand advice.

>>77439580
>only beginners can build mucsle in a caloric deficit
Retarded broscience.
The notion that only beginners can build muscle with a caloric deficit is only backed up by broscience memes and dudebros that don't know shit about physiology and don't even pay attention to countless counterexamples.

Not only do we see countless examples of resistance trained people building muscle in caloric deficits but we also have the literature showing it is not only possible but likely.

Adipose and muscle tissue are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TISSUES, composed of different building blocks and respond differently to metabolic signalling and hormones.
Fat always builds up in caloric surplus but muscle tissue does not and in fact by itself it never does.
Fat always shrinks in caloric deficit but muscle tissue does not.
It is perfectly normal for fat mass to shrink while muscles grow, because your fat mass covers for moderate dietary energy deficits.

The problem that people like you have is that you expect muscle growth rates and overall potential to be much higher than they actually are, and so to keep up with this delusion of yours you have to justify shitty practises like getting fat which is what bulking is because it is the only way you can see a significant increase in your "size" as a trained lifter.
>Well trained lifters are already much nearer their genetic maximum, thus making growth HARDER, not EASIER
And as a result well trained lifters on a daily 500 caloric surplus would end up gaining around 4lbs of fat in a month in hopes of building an ounce of of muscle in their entire body, getting fat dozens of times faster than they can build muscle.

Is that supposed to be a point in favour of bulking?

>>77440063
>Adipose and muscle tissue are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TISSUES, composed of different building blocks and respond differently to metabolic signalling and hormones.
The point is muscle building is difficult, and gets more difficult the more you do it.
If you have a lot of muscle and are an advanced lifter, it is harder and harder to add more
You aren't going to add more in conditions that ALSO lead to fat loss
It is hard enough just to build any under good conditions, let alone terrible ones (calorie restriction)
>Not only do we see countless examples of resistance trained people building muscle in caloric deficits but we also have the literature showing it is not only possible but likely.
Ok show me

>>77440133
>The point is muscle building is difficult, and gets more difficult the more you do it.
Dietary calories are not a hypertrophy stimulus.
There is even less of a benefit in an energy surplus the more trained you are.

Bulking was made for skinny undermuscled weak people as they have little fat stores to source energy from and also have the highest capacity for growth, they're the ones who can benefit from a caloric surplus not the well trained.

Trained natural lifters who aren't ripped have no business bulking.
>If you have a lot of muscle and are an advanced lifter, it is harder and harder to add more
Yes, but that's because no matter what they do it is harder to add muscle because their muscles are approaching their maximum size potential for the androgen levels in their bodies.
>You aren't going to add more in conditions that ALSO lead to fat loss
That doesn't necessarily follow + you're not going to add more muscle forever regardless of what you do, just like doing your laundry might stimulate some growth for the bedridden and maximally atrophied individual but it won't make your muscles grow because your T1 muscle fibers are completely hypertrophied and eventually neither will training because your T2 muscle fibers will also eventually reach their maximum size.
>It is hard enough just to build any under good conditions, let alone terrible ones (calorie restriction)
Caloric restriction is not a terrible condition to be in and not a soul in this entire board is at the risk of losing muscle by being in a -500 caloric deficit.
>Ok show me
Step foot in a gym and spend some time befriending average people with training time under their belts who might be dieting.

If you are referring to the literature I mentioned then:
-barakat 2020
-henselmans 2026
-antonio 2015
-haun CT 2018
-campbell 2018
-cribb 2008
-colquhoun 2018
-vargas-molina 2026

>>77440356
>Doesn't (because cannot) speak from personal experience

if you retards spend as much time actually lifting weights as you do researching gay science shit you might actually have some muscles

bulking is a meme psyop to turn you into a fat retard and has been for decades